The US Constitution and Amendment
The US Constitution has been called for amendment on a very large scale. There are several justifications for loosening more democratic and constitutional rights in the areas of gerrymandering, campaign finance, and gun regulation. But in my opinion, the constitution does not require to be abolished by calling for a new legislative Convention right away or in the near future.
Importance of Stable Standards
First, it is important to avoid easily changing the political agreements that made the Constitution feasible. Furthermore, stable standards are necessary for the Federal Government of the United States to work cooperatively with the States. It is because of this that the drafters and the founders made a double requirement of super-majority approval and ratification of any proposal for an amendment of the Constitution. This process of change is different from the amendment of ordinary legislation. The Constitutional Amendments are thus perfect impossibility given the history of United States. The constitutional provision on its complete overhaul is self-evident in this respect. Article 5 of US Constitution provides for an amendment through a convention of a proposal by a two-third majority of both legislative bodies; the Senate and the House. After this first step, the amendment is to be then forwarded to the states and must command the approval of three- quarters of the States. What this means, therefore, is that there must be a super majority achieved to pass the amendment. This shows why more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed with only 27 of them passed for over two centuries.
The Extraordinary Work of the US Constitution
The US Constitution is, therefore, an extraordinary work. It shows an expression and protection of Civil liberties. The arguments of the few number of people who signed it during an agrarian economy with a fewer population as a basis of its abolishment is a tilted argument whose basis rests on the fact that the document is so old as opposed to the fact that it has been rendered incapable of protecting civil liberties in the whole of the United States. If there are serious concerns about the undemocratic Electoral College and the undemocratic nature of the representation in the Senate. It can be done by an Amendment as opposed to the abolishment. The choice of amendment by abolishment by the delegates was guided by a rationale that does not currently exist. The delegates in Philadelphia's 1987 Delegation came with the Constitution as a means of Amendment to the Articles of Confederation because of a disconnect between the peoples' needs and the documents (Friedman and Harry 120). However, that there is need to cover certain things not covered by the US Constitution is not a valid ground of claiming a disconnect with the needs of the people. Furthermore, despite the few concerns, the best practices world over have been drawn from the US Constitution thus suggesting that it substantially subjects the spirit of the American people.
The Role of the United States Supreme Court
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has also played a good role in interpreting the Constitution. The words used in the Constitution are not cast in stone, and if need be for the expansion of any civil liberties, they need to be made expansively interpreted to cover the new situations. This being the case, the calls to abolish the Constitution to cover the situations for effective gun control, a well-regulated militia, regulation of campaign funds for candidates for political offices and state immunity are therefore unnecessary. These changes can be and have been deliberated by the Supreme Court. For example, the courts have been instrumental in the expansion of the rules on gay rights, gun rights and regulation of campaign funds. Additionally, given the practice of elections of the justices to the Supreme Court, it beats logic to use the elected representatives to go through the tedious and near impossible process of amendment instead of electing the justices who are receptive to any needed changes in the constitution.
The Need for Change and Progress
My preceding argument is not oblivious of the dire need for change through the direct actions if the people. The founders of the US Constitution also recognized that there are upcoming challenges that may desire and need certain changes. Therefore, the past and its dead hand should not be used as a blockage for the inclusion of progress into our Constitution. The reported mass shootings, therefore, suggest a need for change. However, in the quest for change, a completely new Convention in place of US Constitution is completely unnecessary. To this extent, the Constitution of United States has also shown its susceptibility to change without much rigidity. This is exemplified by the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution and the post-civil War amendments that expanded the civil rights in light of the existing and new circumstances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concerns that have been raised about the expansion of the civil rights and limitation of some can be better done by Amendments or interpretation by the courts. If they cannot pass through the super-majority test that may mean that they do not reflect the spirit of the people. And in such circumstances, abolishment would be unnecessary for a document that still substantially reflects the spirit of the US citizenry.
Works Cited
Friedman, Lawrence Meir, and Harry N. Scheiber, eds. American law and the Constitutional
Order: historical perspectives. Harvard University Press, 1988.
